Pulido Federico, Arribas José R, Delgado Rafael, Cabrero Esther, González-García Juan, Pérez-Elias María J, Arranz Alberto, Portilla Joaquín, Pasquau Juan, Iribarren José A, Rubio Rafael, Norton Michael
Unidad HIV and Laboratorio de Microbiología Molecular, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
AIDS. 2008 Jan 11;22(2):F1-9. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282f4243b.
Prior attempts to reduce the number of drugs needed to maintain viral suppression in patients with suppressed HIV replication while receiving three antiretroviral drugs have been unsuccessful.
In 205 patients with suppressed HIV replication on lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides, this randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial compared the strategies of continuation of triple therapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy followed by reinduction with two nucleosides if virological rebound occurred without genotypic resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients without therapeutic failure, defined as confirmed HIV RNA higher than 500 copies/mL (with exclusion of patients receiving monotherapy who resuppressed to < 50 copies/mL after resuming baseline nucleosides), or loss to follow-up, or change of randomized therapy other than reinduction.
At week 48, the percentage of patients without therapeutic failure was 94% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (difference,-4%; upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 3.4%). The percentage of patients with HIV RNA 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks by intention-to-treat, missing data or reinductions considered as failures, were 85% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (P = 0.31; 95% upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 14%).
In this trial, 48 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was non-inferior to continuation of two nucleosides and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with prior stable suppression. However, episodes of low level viremia were more common in patients receiving monotherapy.
此前尝试减少接受三种抗逆转录病毒药物治疗且HIV复制得到抑制的患者维持病毒抑制所需药物数量的努力均未成功。
在205例接受洛匹那韦-利托那韦和两种核苷治疗且HIV复制得到抑制的患者中,这项随机、开放标签、非劣效性临床试验比较了三联疗法持续治疗与洛匹那韦-利托那韦单药治疗策略,若出现病毒学反弹且对洛匹那韦-利托那韦无基因型耐药,则随后重新引入两种核苷。主要终点是无治疗失败的患者比例,治疗失败定义为确诊的HIV RNA高于500拷贝/毫升(排除接受单药治疗且在恢复基线核苷后病毒载量重新抑制至<50拷贝/毫升的患者)、失访或除重新引入治疗外的随机治疗改变。
在第48周时,单药治疗组无治疗失败的患者百分比为94%,三联疗法组为90%(差异为-4%;差异的95%置信区间上限为3.4%)。在意向性分析中,将缺失数据或重新引入治疗视为失败的情况下,第48周时HIV RNA<50拷贝/毫升的患者百分比,单药治疗组为85%,三联疗法组为90%(P = 0.31;差异的95%置信区间上限为14%)。
在本试验中,对于既往病毒抑制稳定的患者,48周的洛匹那韦-利托那韦单药治疗并按需重新引入核苷并不劣于两种核苷与洛匹那韦-利托那韦联合持续治疗。然而,接受单药治疗的患者中低水平病毒血症发作更为常见。